I enjoy Stravinsky and Bartok myself, but my point was to say that because their music is still enjoyed by others nearly 100 years after it was produced this shows that their music is not forgettable.

And why would it be? In accordance to rdtprog's "theory", much of their music has made an immediate impact on me.

It took me several listens to truly enjoy Bartok and Stravinsky, and I know it has taken several listens for other people. So while it may have had an immediate impact on you, I think for many it was not something that immediately connected with them.

Sure, it took me several listens to 'truly enjoy' their music, simply because it's too dense and complex to absorb in one go. But nevertheless something caught my interest right away. This might not hold true for everybody, and neither do I claim it does, but it holds true for my experience.

QuestionableScum wrote:

Also, the OP's theory made some comments about the melodic character of music, and as much as I love Stravinsky and Bartok, their music is not particularly melodic. Dissonance usually dominates over consonance in terms of harmony.

Melodies can be dissonant. There's this tendency in casual conversation to use the word 'melodic' to mean 'consonant' or even 'catchy', but that's not true. Both Stravinsky's and Bartok's music is perfectly melodic. It just might be harder for the ear to parse these melodies, because they're often outside of the harmonic relations we are familiar with.

Polymorphia wrote:

You may like a song that impacts you instantly, and
that's fine. I do too; however, if you say that instantly impacting
music is necessarily better than gradually impacting music, or vice
versa, we have a problem. By saying so, you have necessarily prescribed
one mode of listening/appreciating over another (instant gratification
in music is better than gradual gratification in music), which is very
limiting to aesthetic taste and can cause one to miss out on a lot of
masterpieces.

Gratification isn't the same as what the OP
called 'impact'. What I call 'impact' is when I recognize something in a
piece of music that interests me. That doesn't mean I instantly enjoy
the whole piece, but it gives me the indication that it's something I
might enjoy. I have yet to come across a piece of music that didn't
interest me at all on first listen and later became something I enjoyed.
Of course, when I say 'first listen', I mean a real listen, not just putting the music on in the background while doing something else.

thellama73 wrote:

I feel like I'm going to scream having to listen to you idiots.

That,
we can all agree on, is objectively rude and insulting. I reiterate:
It's not about adding "IMHO" to every opinion. It's about accepting that
when it comes to taste, other people's opinions can coexist happily
with yours. When you say "accessible pop music of course isn't
good", you're trying to invalidate the opinion of everybody who might
actually enjoy accessible pop music. Had you said "pop music sucks",
that would have been fine. I would have disagreed (and rather vehemently
so), but it would have been a valid statement of your opinion,
regardless of whether you designated it as such. But when you add
something like "of course", which implies that what you said should be
self-evident to everybody, you're no longer just stating your opinion,
you're implying that something must be wrong with everybody who
disagrees because he doesn't see the truth that you find so obvious.
That is offensive, even if you add "IMHO".

Regarding the "exhibit A" that's being used in this thread, my opinion on Tales has stayed pretty much the same from my first listen to the most recent one: It has some good parts and some boring parts. The magnitude might have changed - I like the bulk of "Ritual" more than I used to while a good portion of "The Remembering" has just grown duller and duller - but not my general opinion - I've always liked the bulk "Ritual" and disliked a good portion of "The Remembering". Repeated listens (and there were many of them) have improved my awareness of what's going on, but they have only confirmed my initial assessment. The good parts are still good and the crappy parts are still crappy.

Regarding the "exhibit A" that's being used in this thread, my opinion on Tales has stayed pretty much the same from my first listen to the most recent one: It has some good parts and some boring parts. The magnitude might have changed - I like the bulk of "Ritual" more than I used to while a good portion of "The Remembering" has just grown duller and duller - but not my general opinion - I've always liked the bulk "Ritual" and disliked a good portion of "The Remembering". Repeated listens (and there were many of them) have improved my awareness of what's going on, but they have only confirmed my initial assessment. The good parts are still good and the crappy parts are still crappy.

There you go then. There are no golden rules and no generalisations. One size definitely does not fit all. Every possible scenario for people liking or disliking this album that could exist probably does exist and that still disproves the OP. Hence "Exhibit 'A'

If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman

I think it's right and wrong. With some albums, on the first listen I realized I was listening to something great but some just went over my head or took some time to digest or fully discover.It happened to me just a few weeks ago with the debut album by Druckfarben. When it was finished I knew it was a 5 star album.

If "melody" was the main definition of music, almost all the composers of the 20th century would never have made it, or be discussed today.

"Melody" is the simplest thing to work around in music ... but it is also the most over rated part of music, and the one part that often is not even the major part in it.

Popular music milks the easiest parts of the music, so you can have that guy playing the clarinet for the housewives in the afternoons and such ... and the guitar 30 second has become the barbie doll of all pieces of music that everyone gets attached to ... other than the naked girl of course!

In general, the best ones usually always have an impact in one way or another and none of the groups you mentioned had an immediate impact, btw ... in fact PF had serious issues with Syd at the lead, and some of the things they were doing live, were not the pop songs on the albums, which created a live issue for the band. YES, spent a long time trying to get it down and together, and it was their 3rd album that kicked in. Rush, I prefer not to discuss and PFM was already an established band by the time we heard about them in the rest of the world ...

Generally, I prefer to state that you can not put down superior muscianship and work ... a hit comes and goes ... but the works of the best will be remembered for a much longer time!

... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self!

I think it's right and wrong. With some albums, on the first listen I realized I was listening to something great but some just went over my head or took some time to digest or fully discover.It happened to me just a few weeks ago with the debut album by Druckfarben. When it was finished I knew it was a 5 star album.

That won't necessarily make it a Classic Album - you could be sick of it this time next week/month/year/decade. Many albums have been 5-star albums after I've listened to them once or twice that have dropped to 4 or even 3 later.

If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman

In general, the best ones usually always have an impact in one way or another and none of the groups you mentioned had an immediate impact, btw ... in fact PF had serious issues with Syd at the lead, and some of the things they were doing live, were not the pop songs on the albums, which created a live issue for the band. YES, spent a long time trying to get it down and together, and it was their 3rd album that kicked in. Rush, I prefer not to discuss and PFM was already an established band by the time we heard about them in the rest of the world ...

The social impact of a group has nothing to do with the personal impact of a piece of music, which is what the OP was talking about.

I think it's right and wrong. With some albums, on the first listen I realized I was listening to something great but some just went over my head or took some time to digest or fully discover.It happened to me just a few weeks ago with the debut album by Druckfarben. When it was finished I knew it was a 5 star album.

That won't necessarily make it a Classic Album - you could be sick of it this time next week/month/year/decade. Many albums have been 5-star albums after I've listened to them once or twice that have dropped to 4 or even 3 later.

A good example of this for me would be Thick as a Brick vs. A Passion Play. I immediately fell in love with TaaB, but over time it lost it's lustre and now I don't care for it as much (I still think it's a great album, just not the flawless masterpiece I once did.) A Passion Play took longer to appreciate, but I now rank it as one of my top two or three records of all time.

The same goes for 2112 vs. Hemispheres. 2112 had a more immediate impact on me, but over time I came regard Hemispheres as a superior piece of music by far.

A good example of this for me would be Thick as a Brick vs. A Passion Play. I immediately fell in love with TaaB, but over time it lost it's lustre and now I don't care for it as much (I still think it's a great album, just not the flawless masterpiece I once did.) A Passion Play took longer to appreciate, but I now rank it as one of my top two or three records of all time.

Interestingly enough it was the exact opposite for me. I loved A Passion Play on first listen but grew off it over time (even though I still like it), whereas I initially regarded Thick as a Brick as good but inferior, and now I think it's the band's masterpiece. Admittedly, that was during a time when I thought "obscure" means "better".

I think it's right and wrong. With some albums, on the first listen I realized I was listening to something great but some just went over my head or took some time to digest or fully discover.It happened to me just a few weeks ago with the debut album by Druckfarben. When it was finished I knew it was a 5 star album.

That won't necessarily make it a Classic Album - you could be sick of it this time next week/month/year/decade. Many albums have been 5-star albums after I've listened to them once or twice that have dropped to 4 or even 3 later.

I didn't say it would be a classic album I said it was a very good album. I don't think classic means masterpiece or even 5 star album.

Like Llama mentioned, there are several albums which I once considered as flawless but now I don't think so anymore. But some albums remained the masterpieces they were.

I think it's right and wrong. With some albums, on the first listen I realized I was listening to something great but some just went over my head or took some time to digest or fully discover.It happened to me just a few weeks ago with the debut album by Druckfarben. When it was finished I knew it was a 5 star album.

That won't necessarily make it a Classic Album - you could be sick of it this time next week/month/year/decade. Many albums have been 5-star albums after I've listened to them once or twice that have dropped to 4 or even 3 later.

I didn't say it would be a classic album I said it was a very good album. I don't think classic means masterpiece or even 5 star album.

Like Llama mentioned, there are several albums which I once considered as flawless but now I don't think so anymore. But some albums remained the masterpieces they were.

The OP has since clarified that the "best" in the thread title kinda refers to classic albums, so that's kinda implicit from now onwards.

If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman

A group of unhelpful onlookers gathers,
seeming to take pleasure in his predicament rather than really
empathizing with him. "for the gory satisfaction of telling you how
absolutely awful you really are.": "I have good eyesight, insight and foresight"

An ineffective solution is proposed. "show me a good man and I'll show you the door."; "you must go in search of the optician."

An
alternative, equally foolish solution is proposed. "Flee the icy
Lucifer. Oh, he's an awful fellow!"; "You can take him in your pouch."

The
protagonist realizes the uselessness of the others' help "here's the
everlasting rub, neither am I good nor bad."; "it had become quite plain
to hare that the others knew nothing about spectacles."

He
realizes that the solution to his problem had been with him right from
the beginning. "I'd give up my halo for a horn, and the horn for the hat
I once had."; "After all, hare did have a spare pair."

I am sure that a lot of you know on a first listening if a song have a impact on you and will still have in the future, and again i don't mean that it's a pop tune with catchy beat and melody, but it could be a song that contains many movements and a strong melody and it could be a classical song with no vocals. What could be subjective is that the classical pieces that have a impact doesn't reach me at the same level as a progressive rock song. I don't want to say that a form a music is better than another one, but only that the best composers on any music genre are the ones who have the art of touching the audience with something in theirs songs that make that we want to hear their songs many times. It's like what we call here "The classic albums".

While in general, a track I like is one that made an impression on me the first time, it is not always the case and one of the exceptions is significant - King Crimson. They are my favourite prog rock band and yet, initially, I stinted over them and spent several distracted listens trying to find something to enjoy in their music. And then *boom* it clicked. I would say the more flexible you are in trying to listen to something from a different perspective, the more likely it is that this sort of thing would happen to you. For a long time, I thought of Kate Bush as just another talented artist and was not particularly fond of her albums. I more or less completely disliked Kid A the first time I heard it and didn't feel like returning to it. If you are of the "I know what I like and I like what I know" kind, you probably tend to gravitate to what is familiar and then, yes, first impressions can make or break the deal. I have seen people make a snap judgment within seconds of listening to a song about whether they should check out some band or artist. Please note that I am not saying one approach is better than the other, just that there is no one universal best approach for everyone. Some people hate it when it is not memorable, some people hate it when it is and the rest are somewhere in the middle.

"Melody" is the simplest thing to work around in music ... but it is also the most over rated part of music, and the one part that often is not even the major part in it.

Ah! ... Hurts already.

Pedro, as an aspiring songwriter I can tell you this much: you clearly have no idea how difficult it is to come up with a really good melody. If what you said there was true, the Beaver and his Tarantulas would have no problem getting as good as, say, Nick Drake ... I think ... .

Edited by Dayvenkirq - November 27 2012 at 11:00

"People tell you life is short. ... No, it's not. Life is long. Especially if you make the wrong decisions." - Chris Rock

You may like a song that impacts you instantly, and
that's fine. I do too; however, if you say that instantly impacting
music is necessarily better than gradually impacting music, or vice
versa, we have a problem. By saying so, you have necessarily prescribed
one mode of listening/appreciating over another (instant gratification
in music is better than gradual gratification in music), which is very
limiting to aesthetic taste and can cause one to miss out on a lot of
masterpieces.

Gratification isn't the same as what the OP
called 'impact'. What I call 'impact' is when I recognize something in a
piece of music that interests me. That doesn't mean I instantly enjoy
the whole piece, but it gives me the indication that it's something I
might enjoy. I have yet to come across a piece of music that didn't
interest me at all on first listen and later became something I enjoyed.
Of course, when I say 'first listen', I mean a real listen, not just putting the music on in the background while doing something else.

By gratification, general aesthetic or cerebral interest is included. I also mean a "real" first listen, disinterested contemplation of the piece of music. Also, your distinctions still don't account for the fact that a piece can hold interest in different ways to different people, and that impact is not necessarily indicative of quality. Even if you or the OP mean so in a subjective sense, that the kind of music one would like is instantly impacting on first listen, if you look at most of the other comments, you'll see that it doesn't necessarily hold true for everybody. And again, you are also ignoring the fact that listeners mature and look for different things than they did previously.

Usually it's the more lengthy complex pieces that take longer to really enjoy and get a stronger appreciation for, but it's that lengthy adjustment period that makes it so great. In other words, the longer the adjustment the more likely that piece of music will stay with you longer.

This is just my experience. THICK AS A BRICK is a good example for me. Didn't love it at first, but after setting with it a few times more I began to hear things that I loved and didn't hear the first time. You see, with a more lengthy involved piece of music it's really hard to take in everything that is going on instrumentaly the very first, maybe even 2nd, listen.

What makes prog so great is its repeat value. Their is so much to discover and pay attention to even after several listens.

Ok. It's time. Lets get Fields Of The Nephilim on PA. They rightfully belong here.

Many of the albums I love the most are albums I have listened to hundreds of times and I know in every detail, and it is this deep knowledge and understanding of the album that makes me still enjoy them so much (even if by now I may not listen to them often anymore, but I still love them).

However this is not a golden rule. Some of these albums which I have listened to hundreds of times (and therefore were favourites at some time) have lost their magic with time.

And obviously there are albums which I have discovered too recently to have been able to listen to them hundreds of times (and therefore I am still on the way of getting to know them in full detail) which have already gained my love.

I remember that for a long time I did not like The Lamb's In The Cage melody, I found it corny, but I finally came to like it.

I actually do think that many pop songs have good melodies, if only a bit "empty" at times. The thing is that they often lack anything interesting beyond that, and so they are of no interest to me. Still, I completely agree on that the melody in the chorus of say "call me maybe" is easily stuck in your head. Does it make it a good song? No, not at all. Does it make it likely to be commercially successful? Yes of course. Those are of course two different things.

When I first listened to Yes, I was disturbed by the atmosphere and the "jumping" feeling in lots of the riffs etc, it felt like they had taken the bad parts from classical music and based their music on that and rock. After plenty of listens, I finally began to like Roundabout. After even more listens I liked Fragile. Then Close to the Edge after adapting/developing my taste even more. Then I got so obsessed with Close to the Edge that I wished they could have made it double the length... this was when I discovered my favorite album (guess which ^^).

I am currently experiencing a very similar process with bands such as Camel, Gentle Giant and King Crimson. I would say that if you do NOT like something the first time you hear it, but keep coming back because you believe there might be something to it after all, then odds are you have stumbled upon what will reveal itself as a masterpiece, at least in your subjective opinion.

I am going to simplify the thread by a simple question. What are the songs or albums that you listen the most over a long period of times? So now the debate will be over and will move to another debate. Immediate impact or not., melodic or not...

It is not self-knowledge, but self-invention that punctuates the advent of being.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum